Indeed, even though it has been described focusing on "pathways which may realistically chosen", I cannot hardly say that it is easily to understand (e.g.) the notable "Flow of 60 days rule", which is a measure for the conclusion by re-vote in the House of Representatives when deliberations in the House of Councillors were prolonged. Further consideration will be needed if it is used for "Civics textbook" or for "newspaper article".

This also can be said that a flow chart for explaining the "backbone" of the Business Process. Although some part of "procedures actually possibly occur" has been omitted, there is no inconvenience in understanding the mechanism or to check the status of deliberations. (Cases that the succeeding House passed the bill with alteration, etc.)

[Bill Deliberation in the National Diet-2]

Your sensitiveness appears in "designing" Business Process.

In other words, even if the designing on exactly the same "business", there will be difference in "granularity of Process " or "placement of the Process" by the designer. Therefore, big difference arises in readability consequently.

Even for the Business Process of internal company, it will likely to be a Business Process definition of "low readability " or "not operation-friendly", if you tried to design all with thoughtless reasons such as, "simply because we need it as a System" or "simply because it is written in the Regulations".

I say, sometimes the judgement of Not to write/draw is required.

Comparison:[Bill Deliberation in the National Diet]

[Bill Deliberation in the National Diet-2:"a1. Registration of the Bill" screen]